Granillo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY R. GRANILLO, No. 08-17276
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00398-JMR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John M. Roll, Chief District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted January 11, 2010
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Anthony R. Granillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing as untimely his “hybrid” action under section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement by
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
GT/Research
his former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Harper v. San Diego Transit Corp., 764 F.2d 663, 665-66 (9th
Cir. 1985), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as untimely because Granillo
filed it more than six months after his claims accrued. See id. at 669 (explaining
that section 301 “hybrid” actions have a six-month statute of limitations and
affirming dismissal of a section 301 “hybrid” action filed seven months after the
claim accrued). The action was untimely even if, as Granillo contends, the claim
accrued on November 14, 2007.
AFFIRMED.
GT/Research 2 08-17276